*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[savill]

Wharf's batting is only existent when he is slggin for Glamorgan in One Dayers. I stil think Napier could do a job, he was leading wicket taker in the Norwich Union a couple of years ago.

 

[tooextracool]

what wud the england team be without freddie and harmie
1.tres
2.solanki
3.vaughn(sp.)
4.strauss
5.petersen
6.collingwood
7.G. jones
8.giles
9.wharf
10.jones
11.Gough

why would you still pick geraint jones?

 

[Pratters]

yes but the problem is that if umpires gave people out only when they were certain, we would have 1 lbw every 2 tests.

Umpires do give people out only when they are certain. And he have more than 1 dismissal by lbw in two tests.

 

[tooextracool]

To be fair to England, if you take two people out of any team in the world, they're all garbage.

India: Take Sehwag and Dravid out, they're nothing.

Australia: Take Gilchrist and Ponting out, they're now decidedly average.

etc..

doubt it, taken any 2 people out of the australian side and they are still better than all other sides in the world.

 

[tooextracool]

Umpires do give people out only when they are certain. And he have more than 1 dismissal by lbw in two tests.

if they did that then why do we have so many poor decisions then?
rubbish, umpires give players out when they 'think' they are out.

 

[Pratters]

if they did that then why do we have so many poor decisions then?
rubbish, umpires give players out when they 'think' they are out.

They make wrong decisions as humans are not perfect and can make errors. I am afraid you are wrong here.

 

[tooextracool]

Well we've seen them without Warne for a year, and McGrath for a year and it barely slowed them down..

in tests are you kidding me? they lost the only test that they played against england( who were rubbish at the time without half their side) without warne and mcgrath and nearly lost to india at home. yes they beat zimbabwe and b'desh without them, well done to them for that.

Even Ponting in India was out and it barely slowed them, but that was because of Gilchrist's batting and leadership. Gilchrist is the fulcrum on which that test team balances.

nope its arguable that they were benefitted by not having ponting in the side.

 

[tooextracool]

They make wrong decisions as humans are not perfect and can make errors. I am afraid you are wrong here.

how can you make a wrong decision if you are 'certain'?

 

[Pratters]

how can you make a wrong decision if you are 'certain'?

You may be certain its out. But it may be a judgemental error.

 

[tooextracool]

Not a million miles from the team I'd pick.

I'd still go for Read over Geraint in ODIs tho & you have to wonder why our leading wicket taker & form bowler from the test series is going home after the 5th. True Hoggy would probably lengthen our tail, but Wharf's batting is rather like the Loch Ness Monster; it's supposed to exist, but I've yet to see any evidence to make me think it's anything other than a figment of Celtic imaginations!!

because hoggard is plain and simple not an ODI class bowler. he pitches the ball up way too much to be successful, because they are played predominantly on flat wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

You may be certain its out. But it may be a judgemental error.

err what? if someone is certain and ends up giving the wrong decision, it proves that he wasnt certain in the first place.

 

[Pratters]

err what? if someone is certain and ends up giving the wrong decision, it proves that he wasnt certain in the first place.

How? It may be a wrong judgement. I may be absoultely certain that a certain person has lied. But after the person explains some perspectives I may not have thought of, I may be proved wrong in judging. It does not prove he was uncertain or certain.

 

[tooextracool]

How? It may be a wrong judgement. I may be absoultely certain that a certain person has lied. But after the person explains some perspectives I may not have thought of, I may be proved wrong in judging. It does not prove he was uncertain or certain.

no if you are certain and it turns out to be wrong, then it shows that you only thought it was right.

 

[Pratters]

no if you are certain and it turns out to be wrong, then it shows that you only thought it was right.

No it means the thought process was wrong. But some one may be certain about a wrong thing too. Human being were certain the Earth was flat for years. They didnt only think they were right, they were certain. But it did prove to be wrong.

 

[tooextracool]

No it means the thought process was wrong. But some one may be certain about a wrong thing too. Human being were certain the Earth was flat for years. They didnt only think they were right, they were certain. But it did prove to be wrong.

how could they be certain? they had no proof that the earth was flat. fact is that they only 'thought' the earth was flat and convinced everyone else to do the same. then of course the person who proved them wrong was certain because he had proof.

 

[Scaly piscine]

doubt it, taken any 2 people out of the australian side and they are still better than all other sides in the world.

Well we've seen them without Warne for a year, and McGrath for a year and it barely slowed them down..

in tests are you kidding me? they lost the only test that they played against england( who were rubbish at the time without half their side) without warne and mcgrath and nearly lost to india at home. yes they beat zimbabwe and b'desh without them, well done to them for that.

No contradiction there then.

 

[Pratters]

how could they be certain? they had no proof that the earth was flat. fact is that they only 'thought' the earth was flat and convinced everyone else to do the same. then of course the person who proved them wrong was certain because he had proof.

In their minds they were certain. Proofs can be wrong too.

In India there was this incident where milk was apparently being drunk by idols of Gods when they put a bowl of milk at the tip of the trunk of the elephant god Ganesha. They were certain its proof of existence of God. It was a wrong certainty!

Science proved it was a phenomena explained by some physics law. So certainities of some people may not always be true.

 

[tooextracool]

No contradiction there then.

well done in not figuring out that i was talking about ODIs, brilliant sherlock.

 

[Scaly piscine]

No you weren't but you can go back to ignore list, you've been shown up so many times already it's worthless reading your endless drivel.

 

[tooextracool]

In their minds they were certain. Proofs can be wrong too.

no they couldnt be certain, they could only think they were right. its like if i say rikki clarke is useless, i could be wrong, but i think im right. i cannot be certain of it even if im 99% sure.

In India there was this incident where milk was apparently being drunk by idols of Gods when they put a bowl of milk at the tip of the trunk of the elephant god Ganesha. They were certain its proof of existence of God. It was a wrong certainty!

yes i remember that incident, and really how anyone can even think that is quite impossible . problem is that no one ever said they were certain. people only thought that was the case. in the same way that no one can say for certain that 'god' exists or ever existed. you can only think he did.